HARMONIA WELLNESS CENTER APPEAL 2200 BRIDGEWAY City Council

HARMONIA WELLNESS CENTER APPEAL 2200 BRIDGEWAY City Council Meeting | January 29, 2013

Presentation Outline Appeal Background Project Information Plan Analysis 1. 2. 3. Ø Ø Ø 4. 5. 6. General Plan Marinship Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Decision Grounds for Appeal Council Options

Appeal Background

Appeal Background June 4, 2012: Application for CUP submitted Planning Commission hearings: � July 25, 2012 (requested more information) � September 19, 2012 (directed staff to draft denial) � October 3, 2012 (denied CUP) October 15, 2012: Harmonia appealed

Project Information

Project Information Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow a cultural school for specialized programs in personal growth and development, including fitness, nutrition and health. Applicant: Jennifer Adler John Mc. Coy Architecture General Plan: Industrial Marinship Specific Plan: Industrial; Parcel 3 B “The Zoning: Plant” Authority: Industrial-Marinship Conditional Use Permit

Site Location: The Plant Ma Bri dg ew ay rin sh ip Wa y

Uses in Area OF FIC ES MA RIN A PA RK TE NN IS CO UR TS SW OF A G FIC RO ES UP BA YM OD EL TH EP LA NT BE R PL KE UM LL BIN G MA CH INE SH OP

Project Description Conversion of 4, 500 sf of a recording studio into a cultural education school � Workshops • • q and classes (group and private) Including: yoga, trigger point therapy, healing arts dance, meditation, nutrition, aroma therapy, acupuncture/pressure, life coaching and feng shui Complementary children’s classes (not daycare) Hours: Tuesday-Sunday from 8 am-7 pm

Un-used Studio Space Harmonia Project Plans – Interior Modifications Workrooms Classroo m Restroom s Recoding Studio Space Existing Studio Space to remain Proposed

Project Plans – Exterior Modifications Existing Proposed P 2 5 P 10 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 9 P 8 P 7 P 6 P 1 P 1 9 P 1 7 P 2 P 1 5 3 P 2 1 P 2 8 6 P 2 2 0 4 Remove Existing Trailer P 1 2 P 1 1 3 New Patio Area P 5 P 4 P 3 P 2 P 1 P 4 P 3 P 1 4 P 2 P 1

Plan Analysis

General Plan Consistency Policy LU-3. 1. Marinship Industrial: Allow industrial use of the Marinship as described in Table 2 -1, General Plan Land Use Categories, and shown on the General Plan Land Use map GP-4. Policy LU-3. 3: New General Industrial Uses. Promote new general industrial uses that are small scale, low traffic generating and nonpolluting. Policy E-3. 3: Other Businesses. Encourage diverse business opportunities.

Marinship Specific Plan Consistency Industrial-Marinship Overlay Zoning District � “provide for industrial, service and arts uses, with the necessary support elements considered important to the City of Sausalito” Parcel 3 B Uses Allowed: � General Industrial � Marine Industrial � Arts � Business Commercial � Marine Commercial

Zoning Ordinance Consistency Schools – Specialized Education and Training: Business, secretarial schools and vocational schools offering specialized trade and commercial courses. Includes specialize non-degree granting schools such as: music schools; dramatic schools; language schools; driver education schools; sailing schools; ballet and other dance studios; ’ seminaries and other establishments exclusively engaged in training for religious ministries; and establishments furnishing education course by mail. Facilities, institutions and conference centers are included that offer specialized programs in personal growth and development (including fitness, environmental awareness, arts, communications, and management, as examples). [emphasis added]

Conformance with Development Standards Existing Use Code The Plant 5 spaces Proposed Provided Use Code Provided 13 spaces The Plant & Harmonia 20 spaces 25 spaces Proposed Existing P 10 P 9 P 10 P 11 P 12 P 13 P 9 P 8 P 7 P 6 P 1 P 2 5 P 1 P 1 9 P 1 7 P 2 P 1 5 3 P 2 1 P 2 8 6 P 2 2 0 4 Remove Existing Trailer P 1 2 P 1 1 3 P 8 P 7 P 6 P 5 P 4 P 3 P 2 P 1 P 1 4

Planning Commission Decision

Denial of Conditional Use Permit Finding A: “The proposed use is allowed with issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Chapters 10. 20 through 10. 28 (Zoning District Regulations), Chapter 10. 44 (Specific Use Requirements) or any other applicable section of this Title 10. ” � Commission: Harmonia is not a Cultural School Finding B: “The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the applicable zoning district. ” � Commission: Harmonia not compatible with MSP Finding D: “The proposed use complies with each

Denial of Conditional Use Permit Finding F: “The size and shape of the subject property is adequate to provide features needed to ensure reasonable compatibility with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area. Features may include but not be limited to yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such features as may be required by this Title or the Commission. ” � Commission: not enough barriers between Harmonia and other light industrial uses Finding H: “The proposed use will not materially adversely affect nearby properties or their permitted uses. ”

Grounds for Appeal

Harmonia Appeal Finding A: Use allowed with CUP � Finding B: Use consistent with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance � Harmonia: Harmonia is a use that is allowed with a CUP Finding F: Size and shape is adequate to provide compatibility with other uses � Harmonia: Harmonia offers services and healing arts education Finding D: Use complies with the Zoning Ordinance � Harmonia: Harmonia is a Cultural School Harmonia: There are barriers which provide separation of uses Finding H: use will not affect nearby properties � Harmonia: Many children visit the Marinship area; Harmonia is not a childcare facility

Correspondence Support for Harmonia Appeal � Chris Gallagher, Bay Model � Bruce Huff � Joan S. Kent � Karen Atkins � Vicki Nichols � Michael Westgate � Adam Krivatsy � Nkechi Njaka � 63 signatures on support petition

Council Options

Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council evaluate the Planning Commission’s determination and the appellant’s grounds for appeal and take one of the following actions: Adopt the draft resolution (Attachment 1) upholding the appellant’s appeal and approving the Conditional Use Permit; or � Adopt the draft resolution (Attachment 2) upholding the Planning Commission decision and denying the Conditional Use Permit. � Alternatively, the City Council may: Remand the project to the Planning Commission for further consideration of a specific issue; or � Continue the public hearing for additional information and/or project revisions. �